GEETU KAMRA,GHAZIABAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- NFAC, DELHI

ITA 5144/DEL/2024

AI Insights

Geetu Kamra, the appellant, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed a penalty imposed by the AO for non-compliance with a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case pertained to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Tribunal considered the facts that the assessee had eventually complied with the requirements of the notice through subsequent communications, leading to an assessment under section 143(3). The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Gyan Mata Radha Satyam Kriyayog vs ITO, to support the decision that the penalty was not warranted as the assessee had ultimately complied with the notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23595 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Gyan Mata Radha Satyam Kriyayog vs ITO Ward12 Allahabad
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144; 143(3); 142(1); 250; 273B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5144/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) Geetu Kamra, KB-78/12, Kavinagar, Ghaziabad-201001. PAN-AOLPK3958A Vs. ITO, Ward-58(3), Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/02/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), vide order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) dated 10.09.2024for the Assessment Year 2017-18, confirming the penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) imposed on the assessee by the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, vide their order dated 19.08.2012. 2 ITA No.5144 /Del/2024 Geetu Kamra vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts that order passed by the A.O. is in bad in law and against the cannon of taxation. 2. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has vitlated by the fact finding and reached on wrong conclusion not based on any relevant default. The Assessing officer in assessment order in point no. 03 on page 02 himself accepted \"another notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 02/11/2019 to file the requisite information on or before 08/11/2019 but the assessee only submitted a request for 15 days adjournment on 08/11/2019 the adjournment was filed on 08/11/2019 thereafter A.O. has issued another notice on 16/11/2019 for next hearing 19/11/2019.\" So, it is wrong to conclude that there was no compliance. 3. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts imposing the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- when assessment order is finalized us 143(3). The reliance is placed in the case of Gyan Mata Radha Satyam Kriyayog vs ITO Ward12 Allahabad on 25/02/2021 vide ITA/95/ALLD/2020 in which Hon'ble Tribunal held as under: \"Thus, the factum of filling the reply and confirmation by the assessee is an evident from the assessment order and the Assessing Officer has considered the reply of the assessee as well as the confirmation and thereafter framed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act After filing the reply the Assessing Officer drop the proceedings under section 144 and framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, finally the assessee complied with the notice issued us 142(1) of the Act. So, the imposition of penalty is wrong and against the law.\" So, penalty imposed by A.O. is against the cannon of taxation. 4. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in initiating the proceeding under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The CIT(A) has erred on law and on facts by not providing proper opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence and therefore the additions have been made against the principles of natural justice as per law. 3 ITA No.5144 /Del/2024 Geetu Kamra vs. ITO 6. The Appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the Grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and filed her return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 30/03/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,13,460/-. Appellant is a proprietor of M/s Gauhar Jewel Boutique engaged in the business of trading of ornaments, precious stones and artificial jewellery etc. The case was selected under scrutiny under CASS and assessment proceedings were completed u/s 143(3). The A.O. has imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance of the notice issued u/s 142(1) dt. 02.11.2019. 4. In first appeal, the CIT(A) the appeal of the assessee, thus the present appeal is filed by the assessee before us. 5. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the assessee by the AO u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance of the notice issued u/s 142(1) dt. 02.11.2019. Whereas the assessee has furnished all the necessary information during the course of assessment proceedings in response to subsequent notices issued by the AO and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. He further placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench of Allahabad Tribunal in the case of Gyan Mata Radha Satyam Kriyayog vs ITO, Ward 12, Allahabad dt. 25/02/2021 in ITA No. 95/ALLD/2020 wherein it is held as under: 4 ITA No.5144 /Del/2024 Geetu Kamra vs. ITO \"On the one hand, the Assessing Officer has given the date of compliances in the above table whereas the penalty was imposed on the ground that the above notices were not complied by the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer has also stated that the assessee has not made compliance to the show cause notice issued u/s. 271(1)(b). However, that cannot be a ground for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. In the quantum appeal, the ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 22.09.2020 has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and therefore, it amounts to acceptance of the explanation of the assessee filed during the assessment proceedings. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of Section 273B of the Act when the assessee has finally complied with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer the penalty is not imposable as the explanation filed by the assessee was finally found to be correct and accepted in the quantum appeal. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act is deleted.” 6. Thus the ld.AR submits that when the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO is deemed to have condoned the absence of the assessee or his authorized representative on earlier occasion when subsequently, the details were furnished by him and the assessments were ultimately completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, penalty for non-compliance at one occasion cannot be made. He therefore, prayed to delete the penalty. 7. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR on behalf of the revenue have vehemently supported the order of revenue authorities. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and case laws relied upon by the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, the assessee failed to respond to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dt. 02.11.2019, however, in response, subsequent notices, the assessee has made necessary compliances and thereafter the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, by respectfully following the decision 5 ITA No.5144 /Del/2024 Geetu Kamra vs. ITO referred to (supra), we find that the penalty-imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act is not justifiable in the present case. Further the AO himself has deemed to have condoned the default of assessee of making non- compliance on earlier occasion as the assessment was finally passed u/s 143(3) of the Act after considering the necessary information and evidences furnished by the assessee subsequently. Under these circumstances, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A), and direct the AO to delete the penalty. 9. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27/02/2025 PK/Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "